Donna Rook is a contributing author –
In 1983, Canadian businessman Maurice Strong, who worked with the UN’s Brundtland Commission proposed “sustainable development” under the cover of Marxist ideology. Strong said “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” Advocating socialist redistribution via open hostility to Western industrial society, Strong claimed “If we don’t change, our species will not survive … Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
The Nazis also used “climate change” to pass the “Reich Nature Protection Law” in 1933 to increase control over the German populace by requiring that decisions on how a person could use his property be first approved by the Reich.
Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of the Soviet Union said in 1996: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism. “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
President Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address, warned that if scientists became dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color their science to increase the flow of dollars by predicting future disaster.
When the International Panel on Climate Change”s (IPCC) original mission was limited to studying human-caused global warming, expert scientists analyzing other factors like sun spots and cloud cover were disregarded. Scientists with grants to support the human caused global warming delusion neglected the fact that CO2 is less than 5% of the earth’s greenhouse gas (water vapor makes up most of the rest) and man-made CO2 is less than 5% of that 5%. That’s why models predicting climate disasters have repeatedly failed despite best efforts of some researchers to manipulate the data.
California, which pays the highest energy costs, is reaping the fruits of these green scare stories. Disastrous fires going on now are not the result of man’s emission of carbon dioxide, but rather because the regulated utility, PG&E, was forced to spend billions of dollars on intermittent, expensive, bird-killing solar and wind energy instead of maintaining their power lines. They were prevented from removing flammable brush and trees near power lines because environmental zealots do not believe in any forest management.
The wealthy and politically connected in San Francisco and Silicon valley were not subject to power outages, but less fortunate Californians were left to scramble for batteries and generator backups, sometimes for their oxygen machines.
California is the canary in the coal mine for our entire nation, if politicians achieve their goals of driving Western Civilization back to the dark ages to subordinate humans to false nature-worship.
Carbon dioxide increases historically lag temperature increases. “In 1985, ice cores extracted from Greenland revealed temperatures and CO2 levels going back 150,000 years,” writes author Joanne Nova. “Temperature and CO2 seemed locked together. It was a turning point — the ‘greenhouse effect’ captured attention. But, in 1999 it became clear that carbon dioxide rose and fell after temperatures did. By 2003, we had better data showing the lag was 800 ± 200 years. CO2 was in the back seat.”
After 60 years of looking the other way, NASA has finally published data confirming the Milankovich theory revealing that the planet’s climate is in fact, changing due to extraneous factors that have absolutely nothing to do with human activity. Canada’s global warming models have recently been outed for throwing out actual historical data and substituting models of what the temperature “should have been,” and their voters are angry with carbon taxes affecting their livelihoods.
As for “consensus” – It plays no role in science. If folks understood how alarmists began to boast of the 97% number of scientists who believe man plays a role in adjusting the earths’s thermostat you would break our laughing. But besides the fact that “consensus science” isn’t science, responsible scientists always question and probe findings. In fact no science is ever settled. We never stop searching for new and better data.
Einstein documented an experiment to be conducted years after he developed his theory of relativity that would either prove or disprove it, because even he was willing to accept that he could be wrong. When a German newspaper article titled “100 Authors Against Einstein” appeared, the great man responded, that if he were wrong⏤only one scientists proof would be necessary, not 100.
Perhaps our problem was best summed up by Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels who said “If you tell a lie big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Donna Rook is a member of the Board of Directors of The Heartland Institute. Her career spans 19 years in sales and executive positions at IBM, and Secretary of Chicago’s Public TV (WTTW) Community Advisory Board.